Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 June 25, 1998 GSBCA 14531-RELO In the Matter of KATHY B. SCHUMER Kathy B. Schumer, Woodbridge, VA, Claimant. Captain Robert A. Yoh , Chief, Administrative Law, and Joyce A. Smith, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, United States Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, VA, appearing for Department of the Army. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). The Department of the Army transferred personnel staffing specialist Kathy B. Glauser from Seckenheim, Germany, to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, with orders to report in August 1997. The Army authorized reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses in connection with this move. On December 29, 1997, Ms. Glauser and Raymond T. Schumer purchased a home in Woodbridge, Virginia. The Army determined that $4,343.74 of the expenses incurred in making this purchase were properly reimbursable and paid Ms. Glauser half of this amount. Ms. Glauser, who married Mr. Schumer (and took his surname) in February 1998, claims that she is entitled to all of the allowable expenses. The Army maintains that the claimant is entitled to only half of the costs because, at the time of settlement, her actual title interest in the residence was only fifty percent. In support of its position, the agency cites paragraph C14000-F.2 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Ms. Schumer objects that because the regulation pertains only to transactions involving multiple occupancy dwellings and properties that include land which is not reasonably related to a residence, it cannot apply to her purchase of a single-family home. She further contends that "my husband and I have [cohabited] together for the past 4 year[s] in a common-law-relationship in Germany where it was recognized as a binding and legal status relationship." An earlier version of paragraph C14000-F.2 of the JTR was limited in the way Ms. Schumer suggests. The paragraph was amended, however, effective December 9, 1997, to provide additionally: If an employee and/or dependents share title to the residence with others, or if an employee is deemed to have title interest under par. C14000-E2(b), the employee shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis to the extent of the employee's actual or deemed title interest in the residence. JTR C14000-F.2(b) (Mar. 1, 1998). The modification brought the JTR into line with the longstanding interpretation of the law by the Comptroller General that a transferred employee who buys or sells a residence in conjunction with his move is entitled to the proportion of the allowable transaction expenses which corresponds to the percentage of ownership of the home by himself and members of his immediate family. Jerry O. Jones, B-249606 (Oct. 8, 1992) (citing Comptroller General decisions dating back to 1969); Anthony Stampone III, B-223018 (Sept. 30, 1986). This understanding had earlier been incorporated into the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6.1(f)(2) (62 Fed. Reg. 13756, 13765 (1997)), which applies to all Federal civilian employees. 41 CFR 302-1.2 (1996). (The JTR explain and implement the FTR with application to civilian employees of the Department of Defense.) The Army applied the rule properly in granting reimbursement of half the allowable transaction expenses to an employee who had a fifty-percent interest in the title to the residential property. Ms. Schumer could have qualified for reimbursement of all the expenses only if, at the time of settlement, Mr. Schumer had been a member of her immediate family. 41 CFR 302-1.4(f), -6.1(c). The claimant attempts to meet this requirement through her assertion that he and she had been cohabiting in a common-law relationship. A common-law marriage is not solemnized by ceremony and generally involves a couple's cohabiting, assuming the rights and responsibilities of husband and wife, and holding themselves out as married, over a period of years. Issues of marital status are determined by state law, and where persons claim to have a common-law marriage, the relationship of spouse exists only where such a marriage is recognized under the law of the state where the parties entered into the marriage. James H. Perdue, GSBCA 14122-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,674. We called to the attention of the claimant and the agency our decision in Perdue, which analyzes the evidence one couple presented which persuaded us that it did indeed have a common-law marriage, and that all allowable real estate transaction expenses should consequently be reimbursed to the transferred employee, even though the employee held less than full interest in the newly-purchased home. Ms. Schumer has not demonstrated, as the claimant did in that case, that she and her current spouse had a common-law marriage at the time they bought their house in Virginia. Ms. Schumer does not say where the relationship began, so we do not know whether it was in a state which recognizes common-law marriages. (She does allege that the couple cohabited in Germany for the four years preceding her transfer to the United States. According to material provided by the Army, under German law, a marriage exists only if appropriate documents have been executed and filed with the government. Ms. Schumer has not provided information contrary to this explanation, and she has not alleged that she and Mr. Schumer executed and filed the appropriate documents. Thus, as far as we know, if the relationship began in Germany, it cannot be considered a marriage.) Even if the relationship began in a jurisdiction which does recognize common- law marriages, the information provided by this claimant is insufficient to demonstrate that she and her husband were engaged in one. She has provided no substantiation for her conclusive statements that "we have held ourselves out as man and wife and considered ourselves as such," and that they commingle funds. On the other hand, she has admitted that the two of them did not establish joint financial accounts. Although each named the other as a beneficiary of a will, the wills call them "friends" -- the same label those documents apply to other individuals. Mr. Schumer's will even calls into doubt Ms. Schumer's statement that the two "have [cohabited] together for the past 4 year[s] in a common-law-relationship in Germany"; the document, signed in August 1996, says, "I am currently living in Seoul, Republic of Korea pursuant to Military Orders" and states that the then-Ms. Glauser was living in Germany. Because Ms. Schumer has not demonstrated that Mr. Schumer was a member of her immediate family at the time the two individuals bought their residence in Virginia, she may not recover on this claim. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge